# "Disabled student" versus "student with disability"--is one superior? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111 "2005-09-11T16:49:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/1 "2005-09-11T16:49:20Z")
I’m having a conversation with a professor about something I wrote, in which I said that a certain teacher showed ease at working with disabled students, but betrayed a set of lowered expectations for his black students. The professor cautioned me that we should refer to the student first, not the descriptor first–that it’s better to say “students with disabilities” and “students of African-American ancestry”, which means that we see their personhood before we see their qualifier. I responded that this flouted English tradition (in which descriptors appear before that which they describe in normal circumstances, and in which the alternate construction is used only to emphasize the descriptor or when a descriptor must be a phrase instead of a single word). This flouting, I said, tends to **emphasize** the descriptor, suggesting that somehow the personhood of the person we’re describing is so in doubt that it must be reinforced constantly, and suggesting that they are in a category apart from all other English nouns. This does not, I suggested, foster equality. However, I’m interested in hearing what y’all think about this. I’ve just begun going back to school to get my elementary education degree, and it’s the second time I’ve been cautioned along such lines\*. While I understand the need to follow my audience’s conventions when my audience is grading me, I’d like to be able to understand the issue better, and possible present a cogent argument to my professors that such linguistic structures are patronizing instead of being helpful. Daniel - The other time was when I described a class as having 4 black students and 20 white students; the professor cautioned me that the correct words were “African American” and “Caucasian.” What, not “Caucasian American”? Is it that the Americanness of the white students is never in question, but that of the black students has to be pointed out? Grrr. And that was from my favorite professor, too. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/2 "2005-09-11T16:53:28Z")
> [@](#): > > This flouting, I said, tends to emphasize the descriptor, suggesting that somehow the personhood of the person we’re describing is so in doubt that it must be reinforced constantly, and suggesting that they are in a category apart from all other English nouns. I would agree, though I hadn’t really thought about it. Its certainyl a very odd and linguistically unpleasant (for English-speakers) formation. > [@](#): > > The other time was when I described a class as having 4 black students and 20 white students; the professor cautioned me that the correct words were “African American” and “Caucasian.” What, not “Caucasian American”? I’ve always disliked the replacement of “black” with “African-American” The latter seems, if nothing else, very silly, like a word that got too big for it’s britches. “Black” is more or less descriptive, and probably more accurate than “African-American” as well. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/3 "2005-09-11T16:55:33Z")
I think you are correct. That style quickly turns any form of writing into watered-down, jargon-heavy mush. It draws attention to those phrases and makes them seem more euphemistic. And that’s without even getting into “Caucasian.” :smack: ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/4 "2005-09-11T17:04:43Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > I’ve always disliked the replacement of “black” with “African-American” The latter seems, if nothing else, very silly, like a word that got too big for it’s britches. “Black” is more or less descriptive, and probably more accurate than “African-American” as well. I happen to personally know multiple black people who are NOT Americans. They are African nationals who are resident aliens in the US. Thus black /= African-American. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/5 "2005-09-11T17:04:56Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > And that’s without even getting into “Caucasian.” :smack: Heh. Actually my favorite bit of weirdness is the phrase, “Students of African-American ancestry.” So, if a student moves here from Burundi and gets her citizenship, what do I say? She’s African American, but she’s not of African-American ancestry. Do I need to check on the citizenship status of all students’ parents before figuring out what to call them? At least “Students of African ancestry” would make sense, although I don’t think it’d be a great descriptor. I also think that African-American is a poor descriptor because in most cases, it doesn’t get at the issue. If a teacher is having trouble dealing with black kids who grew up in the US, he’s likely (I’d think) to have trouble dealing with black kids who grew up in Ghana, Cuba, or Brazil. Racial prejudice doesn’t normally look at passports. That said, I don’t object to the phrase African American; it’s used by plenty of folks who are actively involved in civil rights struggles. Those folks also tend to use other words as well, though: for them, African American and black may be used interchangeably. (I looked up speeches and articles by Manning Marable, Jonathan Kozol, and Jesse Jackson to verify that this was true). What bugs me is when a white professor in an entirely white department teaching an entirely white student body tells me what term black students–excuse me, “students of African American heritage” should be called. Sorry, I’m afraid that got into venting territory. To her credit, the professor is willing to talk about the issue, and has told me that it’s up to me what terminology I use as long as I’m thinking about the issues. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/6 "2005-09-11T17:15:22Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I’m having a conversation with a professor about something I wrote, in which I said that a certain teacher showed ease at working with disabled students, but betrayed a set of lowered expectations for his black students. > > The professor cautioned me that we should refer to the student first, not the descriptor first–that it’s better to say “students with disabilities” and “students of African-American ancestry”, which means that we see their personhood before we see their qualifier. “Student with disability” is the correct term (for now). This does flout normal English usage, but it is used with students that have traditionally been discriminated against. In this day and age, 40 years after _Brown v Board of Education_, it may be overkill (in most places in the US) to say that African-Americans need to have their student status as the focus; but with all of the discrimination special-ed students face (they can still legally be segregated under certain conditions), I think the “person-first” usage is appropriate until they reach more equality with their non-disabled peers. (note the normal usage of descriptor first) > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > - The other time was when I described a class as having 4 black students and 20 white students; the professor cautioned me that the correct words were “African American” and “Caucasian.” What, not “Caucasian American”? Is it that the Americanness of the white students is never in question, but that of the black students has to be pointed out? Grrr. And that was from my favorite professor, too. I got tired of being “caucasian (not of Hispanic origin)” so I now label myself an Anglo-American. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/7 "2005-09-11T17:20:14Z")
A problem that I would anticipate with ‘disabled student’ is that the word ‘disabled’ is ambiguously either an adjective or part of a compound noun. The alternative avoids any such ambiguity, at the expense of brevity. Which is correct usage depends on the context - in formal writing, such as the OP’s case, I would always opt for clarity. In informal situations, it’s not such a concern. ---
**Author:** ![whiterabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/cab0a1/32.png) [@whiterabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whiterabbit)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/8 "2005-09-11T17:20:45Z")
I think it’s silly. I hate the “people first” crap. I’m disabled. I’m also a lot of other things. If somebody is so dense that they can’t figure that out without a silly PC term being used, then I don’t really give a rat’s patootie about them or what they think about me. I tend to assume that the people who come up with these euphemistic ways of talking about people either haven’t had much interaction with the people they are describing, or that even if they have they are somehow sooo afraid to be offensive that they will go to silly lengths to try to avoid it. I don’t need somebody tiptoeing around what is glaringly obvious as if to mention it would be a bad, bad thing. I also think “African-American” is sort of silly, but I’m not sure I’m allowed to think that seeing as I’m white. ---
**Author:** ![La\_Llorona](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@La\_Llorona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/La_Llorona)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/9 "2005-09-11T17:21:30Z")
I have a very, very strong preference against saying “person who is black (African-American),” and would far rather refer to “a black (African-American) person.” That said, I do understand the reasoning behind your professor’s position, and it is well-meaning, but–eh. Too PC/euphemistic/watered-down, as was said in earlier posts. But at the same time, your professor’s usage has, as I understand it, come into a certain vogue in academia, and perhaps it’s best when in Rome…? And incidentally, I have never, ever heard of a good way of saying disabled/handicapped/differently abled, etc that won’t irritate/offend _somebody_. Of course, as some smartass will come along and say,“You can just call somebody with a disability John!” (or whatever), but what about the times when you would need to refer to disabled people as a group, as in “professors who work with the disabled”? Arghhhh. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/10 "2005-09-11T17:23:16Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > That said, I don’t object to the phrase African American; it’s used by plenty of folks who are actively involved in civil rights struggles. Those folks also tend to use other words as well, though: for them, African American and black may be used interchangeably. (I looked up speeches and articles by Manning Marable, Jonathan Kozol, and Jesse Jackson to verify that this was true). What bugs me is when a white professor in an entirely white department teaching an entirely white student body tells me what term black students–excuse me, “students of African American heritage” should be called. > > Daniel The problem with “black” is not that it isn’t descriptive, but that it tends to become a noun instead of an adjective, and I do find that somewhat offensive: Non-offensive: There are a lot more black kids in my AP class this year than last year. Offensive: There are a lot more blacks in my AP class this year than last year. Somehow making “black” the noun seems to imply that’s all that is there and it bugs me, but it is a pretty easy linguistic shortcut to fall into. So I stick with “African American”, as it has the adjective-noun format built in. I do think that putting the descriptor in a prepostitional phrase is completely over the top, but it might be a good thing to be aware of – if some people have a problem with it, then you should probably err on the side of caution in formal written communications. But in spoken English? That’s crazy. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/11 "2005-09-11T17:28:18Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > A problem that I would anticipate with ‘disabled student’ is that the word ‘disabled’ is ambiguously either an adjective or part of a compound noun. Can you elaborate on this? I don’t understand the difference. > [@La Llorona](#): > > Of course, as some smartass will come along and say,“You can just call somebody with a disability John!” (or whatever) Actually, the professor brought up a point almost like this in her response: her brother-in-law Mark is Choctaw, and when she asked whether he preferred to be called Native American or Indian, he said, “What’s wrong with Mark?” Thing is, I was writing specifically about how a teacher in a case study responded to students who were black or disabled; I wasn’t writing about how he responded to Kaisha or Leslie. If you’re talking about how someone deals with groups, you kinda gotta refer to the group. > [@Manda Jo](#): > > The problem with “black” is not that it isn’t descriptive, but that it tends to become a noun instead of an adjective, and I do find that somewhat offensive: > > Non-offensive: There are a lot more black kids in my AP class this year than last year. > > Offensive: There are a lot more blacks in my AP class this year than last year. Why is the latter offensive? [Check out this article by Jonathan Kozol](http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/American-Apartheid-Education1sep05.htm): > [@](#): > > Even these statistics, as stark as they are, cannot begin to convey how deeply isolated children in the poorest and most segregated sections of these cities have become. In the typically colossal high schools of the Bronx, for instance, more than 90 percent of students (in most cases, more than 95 percent) are black or Hispanic. At John F. Kennedy High School in 2003, 93 percent of the enrollment of more than 4,000 students were black and Hispanic; only 3.5 percent of students at the school were white. At Harry S. Truman High School, black and Hispanic students represented 96 percent of the enrollment of 2,700 students; 2 percent were white. At Adlai Stevenson High School, which enrolls 3,400 students, blacks and Hispanics made up 97 percent of the student population; a mere eight tenths of one percent were white. Is his use of “blacks” offensive in the last sentence? If so, could you explain why? If not, could you explain what makes his usage different from the usage in your example above? For me, as long as the writer isn’t using a pejorative term, it’s more about the content of the passage and not about the specific nomenclature. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/12 "2005-09-11T17:31:24Z")
**Manda** , I should add that in your example, I **do** find the second phrasing (“There are a lot more blacks”) to be irritating, so I agree with you to some degree; I’m just not convinced that it’s the nounulosity of “black” that makes it problematic. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/13 "2005-09-11T17:34:30Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Can you elaborate on this? I don’t understand the difference. As an adjective-noun construct, ‘disabled student’ means exactly the same as ‘student with a disability’. As a compound noun, it means that the student should be defined according to their disability, and implies that the disability is the single most important thing about that person. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/14 "2005-09-11T17:35:08Z")
For some reason, more syllables seems to mean more politically correct. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/15 "2005-09-11T17:35:22Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Is his use of “blacks” offensive in the last sentence? If so, could you explain why? If not, could you explain what makes his usage different from the usage in your example above? > > For me, as long as the writer isn’t using a pejorative term, it’s more about the content of the passage and not about the specific nomenclature. > > Daniel There it doesn’t bother me, though I would have avoided that construction. However, when in casual conversation someone says " There are a lot of blacks living in that neighborhood" it sends up a red flag that “There are a lot of black people living in that neighborhood” doesn’t. In and of itself it isn’t going to cause me to label someone racist–not even close. But it’s a tad troublesome, and it’s a usage I conciously avoid in my own speech/writing. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/16 "2005-09-11T17:37:55Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > At least “Students of African ancestry” would make sense, although I don’t think it’d be a great descriptor. Oh, you couldn’t do that. You’d be emphasizing their Africanhood over their Americanhood. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/17 "2005-09-11T17:39:16Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Is his use of “blacks” offensive in the last sentence? If so, could you explain why? If not, could you explain what makes his usage different from the usage in your example above? > > For me, as long as the writer isn’t using a pejorative term, it’s more about the content of the passage and not about the specific nomenclature. > > Daniel The nomenclature can indicate pejorative associations. Your example is a case where the use of ‘blacks’ is not any great concern. But how about if a policeman reports a ‘group of blacks’ gathered outside a house? Would this mean _nothing_ other than a group of black people? I would find myself questioning why the policeman chose to describe the gathering in such a way - if descriptions of the people were important, he should be giving other information (male, female, kids, adults?), and a failure to do so suggests the only important thing is that they are black. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/18 "2005-09-11T17:45:13Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > As an adjective-noun construct, ‘disabled student’ means exactly the same as ‘student with a disability’. As a compound noun, it means that the student should be defined according to their disability, and implies that the disability is the single most important thing about that person. Hmm. I don’t think it’s a compound noun after all: a compound noun (cathouse, dogfight, waterhose, asshole, postman, etc.) is so named because it comprises two nouns stuck together into one. “Disabled” cannot be a noun. Maybe you mean that it’s an idiom? At any rate, I’m not at all convinced that a description of “disabled student” is more vulnerable to such identification-by-disability than “student with disability” is. To take another example, the new phrase for folks who don’t speak English fluently is English Language Learner, or ELL. Is this the most important aspect of a student? Certainly not–yet several of my textbooks use “ELL” as an acronym referring to such students. And in context, it’s appropriate. A student’s nonproficiency with English isn’t the most important thing about her; but if we’re trying to figure out how to structure a math lesson so that all students have an opportunity to learn effectively, her nonproficiency with English may well be her most salient characteristic in regards to that decision. Similarly, if we’re discussing how a teacher handles diversity in his classroom, a student’s disability may be the most important characteristic to look at, inasmuch as it would present the teacher with a greater “diversity” challenge than, say, the students love of soccer, fear of costudent Adam, or tendency to to stick out his tongue when reading difficult passages. I recognize the danger of pigeonholing kids by certain descriptors. The solution, I think, is to use those descriptors sparingly and **only** when they directly relate to the matter at hand–don’t talk about Fiona’s deafness unless her ability to hear is relevant, and never never just refer to her as “the deaf kid” when you’re telling a story about her behavior in the cafeteria or whatever. But if you follow that rule, then it doesn’t so much matter what specific term you use: “my student with a hearing impairment” doesn’t convey any more respect than “my deaf student.” But yeah: when in Rome and all. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/19 "2005-09-11T17:47:37Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > The nomenclature can indicate pejorative associations. Your example is a case where the use of ‘blacks’ is not any great concern. But how about if a policeman reports a ‘group of blacks’ gathered outside a house? Would this mean _nothing_ other than a group of black people? I would find myself questioning why the policeman chose to describe the gathering in such a way - if descriptions of the people were important, he should be giving other information (male, female, kids, adults?), and a failure to do so suggests the only important thing is that they are black. I hope my last post answers this, but to clarify, I agree that you shouldn’t be bringing up race unless it’s directly relevant to the conversation at hand. In your example, wouldn’t you be equally irritated if the policeman referred to “a group of people of African American ancestry” outside the house? I definitely would. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111/20 "2005-09-11T18:22:49Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Hmm. I don’t think it’s a compound noun after all: a compound noun (cathouse, dogfight, waterhose, asshole, postman, etc.) is so named because it comprises two nouns stuck together into one. “Disabled” cannot be a noun. Maybe you mean that it’s an idiom? Nope… > [@](#): > > The open or spaced form consisting of newer combinations of usually longer words, such as distance learning, player piano, lawn tennis, etc. > **[English compound](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_compound)** > > A compound is a word composed of more than one free morpheme. The English language, like many others, uses compounds frequently. English compounds may be classified in several ways, such as the word classes or the semantic relationship of their components. > English inherits the ability to form compounds from its parent the Proto-Indo-European language and expands on it. Close to two-thirds of the words in the Old English poem Beowulf are found to be compounds. Of all the types of word-formation ... > [@](#): > > To take another example, the new phrase for folks who don’t speak English fluently is English Language Learner, or ELL. Is this the most important aspect of a student? Certainly not–yet several of my textbooks use “ELL” as an acronym referring to such students… > > Similarly, if we’re discussing how a teacher handles diversity in his classroom, a student’s disability may be the most important characteristic to look at, inasmuch as it would present the teacher with a greater “diversity” challenge than, say, the students love of soccer, fear of costudent Adam, or tendency to to stick out his tongue when reading difficult passages. You recognise that context is crucial. However, ‘disabled student’ tells you _nothing_ about any specific needs, and is therefore utterly useless by itself in your scenario. (And FWIW, the British terminology for the language situation is “…with English as an additional language”, or “… with EAL”.) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disabled-student-versus-student-with-disability-is-one-superior/321111.md?page=2)